I'm going to be honest. This was one of the best episodes, in my opinion, in a while.
From the fact that this isn't something I'd organically see on Twitter, to the FOIA request and commentary from people on the ground, this was a solid episode.
Really thought this was quite well done. Props to the team
Yes, it shows that Katie put in some time on this one. While it's absolutely a bullshit story that itself might only affect a couple of listeners, it was definitely worth doing. Most of us see some kind of variation on this bullshit although much less outlandish and clear cut.
Can there be some push back about describing a person as "diverse"? It's not possible for a person to be diverse, a person is always equal to themselves. I actually do think that this use of language has a very good claim to being white supremacy (along with saying people are "racilized"). It seems to me that a hypothetical small village in Africa where everyone is (at most) second cousins would be described as far more "diverse" than New York City, which is simply not what that word means!
Are you saying a room full of black people who all went to Ivy League schools and got high power jobs and have the same basic world view and fairly similar life experiences is not just the most beautifully diverse thing you’ve ever had the PRIVILEGE to set your eyes on?
I don’t see how it’s a euphemism. It’s just incorrect usage. Like saying something is “inflammable” when you mean “flammable”. It’s technically wrong and it annoys me but I’m not gonna correct anyone on it since we all know what the speaker is trying to say.
"Inflammable" is correct, it comes from the verb "to inflame". It is however confusing because of the other meaning of the "in-" prefix, so "flammable" and "non-flammable" can be used instead.
The people who assume a “diverse” candidate is unqualified and hired strictly because of their identity never assume the same of well-connected white males. Interesting, that.
Under affirmative action principles, employers are urged to take affirmative steps to seek out applicants who meet the stated qualifications for the position.
In contrast, the premise of “equity” hires is that requirements can be waived, generally because they’re believed to be barriers for members of historically marginalized racial or ethnic identity groups. Katie gave the example of waiving the requirement that a head librarian have a masters degree in the field. In other words, employers lower standards for diversity hires strictly because of their identity.
Just as some minority applicants are very well connected for certain jobs because they’ve come up in the small and insular world of social justice nonprofits, some white guys are very poorly connected because they’re not well socialized into mainstream hetero male culture.
This is akin to another deplorable phenomenon in journalism. I encountered it most memorably in the local paper's story about the new president of prominent institution in the city. Among other things, it noted that the incoming president was "LGBT." Really?
That's an even bigger pet peeve for me than "diverse". (Steelman: I think someone could come have diverse ancestry for example, and it would make sense to shorten it to the person being diverse.) But no individual even CAN BE LGB (Nevermind the TQIA+.)
I am blaming them. I'm also calling it like I see it. People who use the term "diverse" to mean "non white" are engaging in a practice where "white" is normal. I think that it's reasonable, although not required, to think of assuming that "white" is the default is engaging in "white supremacy". It's ironic that the people who are most vocally "anti-white supremacy", are, as far as I can see, engaged in "white supremacy".
Noticing that the default, John Doe employee is white is not at all the same thing as saying "white is normal." It rhymes but it's not the same thing, and it's obviously not normative! They claim to want, and behave as if they want, the exact opposite.
I’ve heard the term “racialized” in terms of traits. For example skin color is “racialized” because it’s a phenotypic feature some people settled on as a feature to use to draw racial dividing lines, regardless of its incomplete overlap with ancestry grouping.
For me, this is up there with describing an individual student as “multicultural.“ In most cases, we’re not talking about the product of multiple cultures or a biracial background. At my school, it usually just means Black.
I agree. It just like my family's running joke when the news says to look out, we are in for some weather. Everyday of my life, there is some sort of weather, whether it is desirable, annoying or destructive.
It’s shorthand for “a person who embodies a diversity goal.” It’s a bit kludgy — kind of like when “woman” is used as an adjective phrase (as in “this is a woman-led podcast”) — but it’s intelligible.
No one say “this is a man-led ice cream shop,” but I guess if they did, we’d know what they mean.
Exactly. I only hear people say it at work, in the context of hiring. "We have 3 candidates - 2 are diverse" means HR isn't going to make us repost because the whole pool was white (major nonprofit with a 6 page DEI statement). And, of course, you can only even say that in hushed tones to a trusted confidant lest even pointing out their diverseness falls on the wrong ears!
I admire any organization that extends opportunities to people who are usually excluded from opportunities. In the long run, everyone is better off when this is the norm.
America kinda understood this during Reconstruction but decided to go in the proverbial different direction after Lincoln got his head air conditioned.
Well, it's not Goodwill, we don't extend opportunities to people because they are historically disincluded. Anyone may apply for any job, at which point those with certain diversity markers will be weighed more heavily - unofficially. The problem with an unspoken directive to hire "diversity" is that "diversity" only means skin color in this context. Or, god willing, skin color + non-male identifying! But let's not ask for the world.
This is dependent on the workplace. I work in elementary ed and I’ve been told at several jobs that me being a man helped to turn the hiring needle in my direction. I get it, there are no men in this field, but I wasn’t crazy about being told that.
Feel free to show where I said opportunities should be extended just because someone is member of an excluded group — as is done at the… Goodwill.
If you read closely you’ll notice I said it’s good when an organization makes an erstwhile effort to extend opportunities to people who have been historically closed out of opportunities.
What about what I actually said do you find disagreeable?
I find ^this comment disagreeable because it's small and condescending. Your initial comment made an unrelated point to my first one, changing the subject so that you can mention how good you are because you, unlike other people, really like to see the disenfranchised get jobs. But that's just me, I find all irrelevant derailing self aggrandizing comments to be disagreeable.
Objectively, you're correct that an individual cannot be "diverse." It arose from references to groups (e.g., "diverse student body," "diverse staff," etc.) and then needing to address individual members of the group. Further, most other terms that might be used as a generic catchall ("minority," "non-white," etc.) has been deemed problematic to one degree or another because they "center whiteness" or such.
I agree, but the places where it is used (Canada, mainly) are places where I think there is more than average opposition to the idea that maybe we can aspire to a future that is not focused on identity differences based on race.
I haven't finished the episode yet, but I'm in library school at the moment, and if I have to get this godforsaken degree, than everyone else who wants anything to do with libraries has to as well. And this is coming from a "diverse" (brown) woman. I don't care if you're black, white, or green.
For his wallet’s sake, I pray he’s doing some soul searching. I was never sure why he was a paying subscriber when he seems to have so much contempt for the hosts, commentary, and subscriber base. He could spend that money to support a podcast or publication that he truly enjoys or put it towards an extra coffee every month. He doesn’t have to throw it away on something he doesn’t seem to like!
I thought of Zagarna when Katie said she was voting Trump. The last thing of there’s I read they said Katie’s ‘mask had slipped’ and they’d be coming out for Trump within the month.
In some ways I couldn’t care less of what they think of us but paying money to a podcast whose hosts you don’t respect in the slightest is truly weird behaviour.
I thought I spotted a comment on the last episode, so I think they may still be about.
I’m playing the odds, given that most men don’t do highlights. But Moose was born with them! He’s so gorgeous that Katie is literally trying to pimp him out for puppies on Twitter!
But yes, good looks and assholery can easily coexist. In all five sexes.
I agree it was fun to have someone be heterodox but it got to the point where you weren’t even having a debate with them. It was just taking your argument in the worst possible way and spitting it back at you. It was twitter energy.
I'm going to be honest. This was one of the best episodes, in my opinion, in a while.
From the fact that this isn't something I'd organically see on Twitter, to the FOIA request and commentary from people on the ground, this was a solid episode.
Really thought this was quite well done. Props to the team
Yes, great work by Katie. My only complaint is that I miss Trace's episode notes. That very good boy was thorough!
Yes, it shows that Katie put in some time on this one. While it's absolutely a bullshit story that itself might only affect a couple of listeners, it was definitely worth doing. Most of us see some kind of variation on this bullshit although much less outlandish and clear cut.
This is real journalism; I love it.
Yeah, it was good. Also, Joslyn Bowling Dixon might not need people to take her side, but it's still nice that people do.
Strong people rarely receive support because they are perceived not to need it. For this reason it is strange and appreciated when it is given.
Plus media criticism!
Came here to basically leave this comment so thanks for doing the work
Yes. This is Barpod at their very best
Totally agree. This is a good example of the show.
Agree!
Can there be some push back about describing a person as "diverse"? It's not possible for a person to be diverse, a person is always equal to themselves. I actually do think that this use of language has a very good claim to being white supremacy (along with saying people are "racilized"). It seems to me that a hypothetical small village in Africa where everyone is (at most) second cousins would be described as far more "diverse" than New York City, which is simply not what that word means!
Are you saying a room full of black people who all went to Ivy League schools and got high power jobs and have the same basic world view and fairly similar life experiences is not just the most beautifully diverse thing you’ve ever had the PRIVILEGE to set your eyes on?
Racist.
This is one of my bugaboos as a journalist but I am fighting a lonely war. A single person cannot be diverse. Only a group can be.
It's a euphemism. It's preferable to "token" and "affirmative action wonder."
I don’t see how it’s a euphemism. It’s just incorrect usage. Like saying something is “inflammable” when you mean “flammable”. It’s technically wrong and it annoys me but I’m not gonna correct anyone on it since we all know what the speaker is trying to say.
"Inflammable" is correct, it comes from the verb "to inflame". It is however confusing because of the other meaning of the "in-" prefix, so "flammable" and "non-flammable" can be used instead.
THANK YOU
The people who assume a “diverse” candidate is unqualified and hired strictly because of their identity never assume the same of well-connected white males. Interesting, that.
Under affirmative action principles, employers are urged to take affirmative steps to seek out applicants who meet the stated qualifications for the position.
In contrast, the premise of “equity” hires is that requirements can be waived, generally because they’re believed to be barriers for members of historically marginalized racial or ethnic identity groups. Katie gave the example of waiving the requirement that a head librarian have a masters degree in the field. In other words, employers lower standards for diversity hires strictly because of their identity.
Just as some minority applicants are very well connected for certain jobs because they’ve come up in the small and insular world of social justice nonprofits, some white guys are very poorly connected because they’re not well socialized into mainstream hetero male culture.
As a journalist, maybe just go the opposite way. Instead of "diverse" say "different".
A synonym for "deviant," perhaps?
Than the normal people clearly.
lol funny and true
It's like when places at the NYT say they're increasing diversity and they just hire a bunch of people from Harvard.
“Our goal is to have at least 30% of the company to be Ivy League graduates who aren’t white or Asian”
This but unironically! It’s exactly what they want.
It just means not-white. Wakanda was portrayed as incredibly diverse… with their ethnically homogenous monarchy and entirely black government.
Baseball and hockey have programs designed to increase diversity. Basketball and football do not.
The NBA has worked really hard at diversifying internationally, and has invested heavily in Africa, China, and I think India.
Hey buddy, I think your bigotry is falling out. Better stuff that back in there and get on…
I’ll start doing the work
Have a peace circle!
I kept hearing that as Pee Circle
This is akin to another deplorable phenomenon in journalism. I encountered it most memorably in the local paper's story about the new president of prominent institution in the city. Among other things, it noted that the incoming president was "LGBT." Really?
That's an even bigger pet peeve for me than "diverse". (Steelman: I think someone could come have diverse ancestry for example, and it would make sense to shorten it to the person being diverse.) But no individual even CAN BE LGB (Nevermind the TQIA+.)
A multitalented president it sounds like.
I was with you until you described it as White Supremacy. Blame the people who have embraced the term and all the opportunities that came with it.
I am blaming them. I'm also calling it like I see it. People who use the term "diverse" to mean "non white" are engaging in a practice where "white" is normal. I think that it's reasonable, although not required, to think of assuming that "white" is the default is engaging in "white supremacy". It's ironic that the people who are most vocally "anti-white supremacy", are, as far as I can see, engaged in "white supremacy".
Noticing that the default, John Doe employee is white is not at all the same thing as saying "white is normal." It rhymes but it's not the same thing, and it's obviously not normative! They claim to want, and behave as if they want, the exact opposite.
I’ve heard the term “racialized” in terms of traits. For example skin color is “racialized” because it’s a phenotypic feature some people settled on as a feature to use to draw racial dividing lines, regardless of its incomplete overlap with ancestry grouping.
For me, this is up there with describing an individual student as “multicultural.“ In most cases, we’re not talking about the product of multiple cultures or a biracial background. At my school, it usually just means Black.
I agree. It just like my family's running joke when the news says to look out, we are in for some weather. Everyday of my life, there is some sort of weather, whether it is desirable, annoying or destructive.
It’s shorthand for “a person who embodies a diversity goal.” It’s a bit kludgy — kind of like when “woman” is used as an adjective phrase (as in “this is a woman-led podcast”) — but it’s intelligible.
No one say “this is a man-led ice cream shop,” but I guess if they did, we’d know what they mean.
Exactly. I only hear people say it at work, in the context of hiring. "We have 3 candidates - 2 are diverse" means HR isn't going to make us repost because the whole pool was white (major nonprofit with a 6 page DEI statement). And, of course, you can only even say that in hushed tones to a trusted confidant lest even pointing out their diverseness falls on the wrong ears!
I admire any organization that extends opportunities to people who are usually excluded from opportunities. In the long run, everyone is better off when this is the norm.
America kinda understood this during Reconstruction but decided to go in the proverbial different direction after Lincoln got his head air conditioned.
Well, it's not Goodwill, we don't extend opportunities to people because they are historically disincluded. Anyone may apply for any job, at which point those with certain diversity markers will be weighed more heavily - unofficially. The problem with an unspoken directive to hire "diversity" is that "diversity" only means skin color in this context. Or, god willing, skin color + non-male identifying! But let's not ask for the world.
This is dependent on the workplace. I work in elementary ed and I’ve been told at several jobs that me being a man helped to turn the hiring needle in my direction. I get it, there are no men in this field, but I wasn’t crazy about being told that.
I'm surprised that not one but multiple places told you that. Pretty unprofesh to point out which demographic marker worked to your favor.
Feel free to show where I said opportunities should be extended just because someone is member of an excluded group — as is done at the… Goodwill.
If you read closely you’ll notice I said it’s good when an organization makes an erstwhile effort to extend opportunities to people who have been historically closed out of opportunities.
What about what I actually said do you find disagreeable?
I find ^this comment disagreeable because it's small and condescending. Your initial comment made an unrelated point to my first one, changing the subject so that you can mention how good you are because you, unlike other people, really like to see the disenfranchised get jobs. But that's just me, I find all irrelevant derailing self aggrandizing comments to be disagreeable.
Objectively, you're correct that an individual cannot be "diverse." It arose from references to groups (e.g., "diverse student body," "diverse staff," etc.) and then needing to address individual members of the group. Further, most other terms that might be used as a generic catchall ("minority," "non-white," etc.) has been deemed problematic to one degree or another because they "center whiteness" or such.
I want to see this applied consistently -- "white supremacy" centers whiteness, henceforth "non-diverse supremacy"
Um, language evolves, sweaty 💅🏻
It's really hard to tell if you're serious or a parody.
Dude, even I don’t know anymore
If there's "racialised," then there should also be "genderised."
Because if a genetic characteristic of one kind can be impugned or taken advantage of, then an even more significant genetic characteristic can too.
ok, sexised then. idc about "gender," it seems to be a completely meaningless term.
I agree, but the places where it is used (Canada, mainly) are places where I think there is more than average opposition to the idea that maybe we can aspire to a future that is not focused on identity differences based on race.
"Minoritized" is another version of this. I think both (racialized and minoritized) are used more in Canada; at least that's where I've heard them.
It sounds like the awful sort of latinization that Orwell would abhor. So probably the fault of the Quebecois?
I haven't finished the episode yet, but I'm in library school at the moment, and if I have to get this godforsaken degree, than everyone else who wants anything to do with libraries has to as well. And this is coming from a "diverse" (brown) woman. I don't care if you're black, white, or green.
I hire non MLS librarians. They're often my better ones ...
What sort of library is it? My understanding is that librarians must have an MLIS degree?
Public libraries. Many libraries require this, but it's a defacto union card. The trend is moving away from it, imo.
If you don’t know who the one asshole in a community is, it’s you.
Is zagarna even here anymore?
Lol omg I thought about Zagarna immediately.
I mean I’m kind of a prick too so we got into it a fair bit, especially on the Israel Palestine thing, but I always saw them starting stupid shit.
Damn. I be knowing peoples names and shit. It’s like I’m… part of something. A CoMmUnItY…
Feels gay.
Feeling gay? During pride month. Ok wokie
There's also Skull, who seems to be at the very least white supremacist-adjacent.
There's a difference between being an asshole and being wrong. I may be an asshole, but I'm not a racist.
I did start praying for zagarna so if he left or reformed I take credit on behalf of the almighty.
For his wallet’s sake, I pray he’s doing some soul searching. I was never sure why he was a paying subscriber when he seems to have so much contempt for the hosts, commentary, and subscriber base. He could spend that money to support a podcast or publication that he truly enjoys or put it towards an extra coffee every month. He doesn’t have to throw it away on something he doesn’t seem to like!
I can’t imagine what it’s like to wake up with that level of anger and feeling like everyone else in the world is a villain.
In his name.
I thought of Zagarna when Katie said she was voting Trump. The last thing of there’s I read they said Katie’s ‘mask had slipped’ and they’d be coming out for Trump within the month.
In some ways I couldn’t care less of what they think of us but paying money to a podcast whose hosts you don’t respect in the slightest is truly weird behaviour.
I thought I spotted a comment on the last episode, so I think they may still be about.
Yes he’s still here, insinuating racism on the part of people who engage with his arguments.
Of course….
It’s not the opinions I object to, it’s the consistent bad faith arguments.
I don’t know why but I’d always assumed they were a ‘she’.
Katie said she's voting Trump? I must have missed that. Was she being serious? Did she say why?
I would be shocked if Katie even voted anymore.
No, just a flippant comment which I think it’s safe to say was 100% a joke.
He could withdraw five bucks every month and burn it instead and by doing that make the world a better place. I would certainly be happier.
🙏
Maybe Zagarna is actually Katie's anon account, just here to stir up trouble.
Is he “Jessica the 80s baby”?
Ridiculous. Zagarna is very clearly Moose.
Air humping? Peeing on the trees? Yeah. Checks out.
Except that Moose has these beautiful blonde highlights. I’m betting our resident asshole does not.
I have met my fair share of extremely good looking assholes. Mostly women but there were a couple of guys in college too.
I’m playing the odds, given that most men don’t do highlights. But Moose was born with them! He’s so gorgeous that Katie is literally trying to pimp him out for puppies on Twitter!
But yes, good looks and assholery can easily coexist. In all five sexes.
Mmh nah, not problematic enough
He was picking/continuing a half-dozen fights in last episode's thread as recently as yesterday, so if he's gone he did so in the last 12 hours.
He’s gonna be rock hard when he comes back and sees how many people are talking about him. 🤣
Maybe I’ve just stopped engaging so my notifications aren’t FULL of replies by him anymore
There’s more than one here. I count 2.5. (I should add that this is subjective but, still, one could make a solid case.
Names bruh.
Spill the tea.
For public shameing purposes.
I volunteer
Haha! I knew it wasn’t just me. He’s gotten pissy with me a couple times. Mostly over Covid talk. He’ll be missed!
I liked Zagarna! We need someone to disagree with us so we don't end up as a boring echo chamber.
That said, I don't understand why anyone would want to, so if they decided to drop out, I wouldn't blame them.
I agree it was fun to have someone be heterodox but it got to the point where you weren’t even having a debate with them. It was just taking your argument in the worst possible way and spitting it back at you. It was twitter energy.